LuftWolf and Amizaur's Weapons and Sensors Database Mod v3.072 --- Now Available!!! - Page 8

Fish · 03-03-07, 09:38 AM

Bellman,

Tested with Kilo, well see for yourself.
You have to place the cursor on the excact baring and click repeatedly to get a new contact at distance, so in a normal mission you do not find those faraway contacts I think.

Not possible with the Seawolf. (used auto TMA).

Bill Nichols · 03-03-07, 09:54 AM

The 'click' cheat has never been a issue for me. I would hate to have this discussion hold-up LW's fine work.

Fish · 03-03-07, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Nichols

The 'click' cheat has never been a issue for me. I would hate to have this discussion hold-up LW's fine work.

Its only a issue when playing multiplayer.

Bellman · 03-03-07, 10:39 AM

The good news for me is after testing SW v Ak I am content that the previous balance of sonar performances has been maintained in this mod. I agree ctc is only a potential MP problem - well policed in the Fleets. But also avoided, as can be seen from Fleet reports, as more and more players in sub v sub dives are selecting the same platforms - egs. 2 SW v 2 SW.

So I do hope LW will press ahead in spite of these minor quibles. They are completely dwarfed by the extent of other accomplishments but I make no appology for addressing them at the 'eleventh hour' as we were asked to test and can only do so when RL permits.

Edit: Fish I think you cite the extreme range as an example of difficulty, but I found intermediate range contacts quite easily with just progressive clicking at a couple of degree or so jumps. This is down to SAS not LW and I am at a loss to understand how it crept back in.
Patch 1.04 Readme - '' Corrected an issue in which the Kilo was capable of creating Sonar contacts at excessively long ranges.'' So what happened ?

Molon Labe · 03-03-07, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fish

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Nichols

The 'click' cheat has never been a issue for me. I would hate to have this discussion hold-up LW's fine work.

Its only a issue when playing multiplayer.

It's only an issue when playing multiplayer with an absolute cock.

Fish · 03-03-07, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fish

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Nichols

The 'click' cheat has never been a issue for me. I would hate to have this discussion hold-up LW's fine work.

Its only a issue when playing multiplayer.

It's only an issue when playing multiplayer with an absolute cock.

You are right!

SUBMAN1 · 03-03-07, 03:33 PM

Did 3.08 ever make it out? Stll waiting with baited breath and can't seem to find it. Thought it was supposed to be out on Thurs or Fri??

-S

Dr.Sid · 03-03-07, 05:20 PM

I guess, since it is not here, it is not out. But I'll be glad to be wrong

Bellman · 03-04-07, 01:57 AM

Kilo SA NB ctc Bug Patch 1.04.

SAS: Patch 1.04 Readme - '' Corrected an issue in which the Kilo was capable of creating Sonar contacts at excessively long ranges.''

Note the use of the word ''excessive'' - this bug/fault was not eliminated and is still present at 'acceptable' ranges up to 20 nm as tested today in a separate install of Stock 1.04.

This would suggest that any SA sonar adjustments have intensified the fault within LwAmi. This means that contacts can be readily identified, if not marked, with increasing difficulty from 20 nm - 65+ nm.

LuftWolf · 03-04-07, 03:44 AM

LWAMI 3.08 will be available either today (Sunday), Monday, or Tuesday.

Sorry for the excessively large window of uncertainty... lots going on.

Cheers,
David

Bellman · 03-04-07, 06:16 AM

Great news David.

I dont want to be a 'party-pooper' and its nothing that cant be tweaked but as requested, with time permitting, testing has continued.

I must regretably withdraw my earlier remark - ''The good news for me is after testing SW v Ak I am content that the previous balance of sonar performances has been maintained in this mod.''

I am a SW diver (mainly) so have taken a closer look at the sonar changes. I was lead to believe that it was mainly the SA that had been 'adjusted. However I have found significant changes to the relative performances of the SW and Ak TAs in the mod.

Under identical Test conditions and using separate installs of Stock 1.04 and LwAmi
3.072 I found the following maxima with TA NB marking(***):

Stock SW - 47.9 nm. marked and 65.7 nm unmarked (***) with difficulty
StocK AK 1 - 38.8 nm. marked
LwAmi SW - 33.3 nm. marked.
LwAmi AK 1 - 37 nm. marked.

An equivalence of performance for the LwAmi SW and AK TA NBs swings the balance towards the AK. But I leave others to judge.

LuftWolf · 03-04-07, 06:27 AM

A lot goes into those detections other than the sonar sensitivity, namely the platform noise levels and thrust sound vs. speed curves, which are very different in the modded and unmodded versions.

The relative sonar strength between the TB-29 and the Pelamida have not been changed at all from stock DW, mainly because there is no gameplay reason to do so, nor any real world data suggesting this change be made. To be clear, the TB-29 is MUCH more sensitive (by a factor of 2/3) than the Pelamida.

Taken as a balance, the SW has a massive advantage over the Akula in terms of detectibility in actual tactical situations, mostly because of the fact that it's maximum tactical speed is more than double that of the Akula, and it manages to be quieter at that speed than Akulas at their tactical speed.

Cheers,
David

PS I assume your SSP is a convergence zone for these tests, in which case the ranges aren't really useful information, because you are getting them all on a bounce... all those contacts will eventually fade as they become closer (in theory) as those ranges HUGE.

Conducting sim-level evaluations of sonar performance in a convergence zone SSP is basically a waste of time, unless you are testing convergence zone SSP's specifically for their impact on sonar performance.

LuftWolf · 03-04-07, 06:34 AM

BTW, what is the point of bringing up stuff I changed years (!) ago? :hmm:

You can PM me any questions you have, that might be a better way to go, since I'm not really clear what I'm supposed to read as a "problem", what is a question, and what is merely observation... and I'm sure I'm not the only one confused.

Trust me, if I am aware of a problem, I'll be the first one to tell everyone about it.

Cheers,
David

Bellman · 03-04-07, 07:03 AM

No not a convergence zone - surface ducts may account for some maximums but not the general run.

Anyways - ''for others to judge'' - I'm done as times run out.

Good luck.

LuftWolf · 03-04-07, 07:18 AM

Regardless, those numbers reported from your tests don't make sense.

It's probably not worth saying that you can look into the database yourself with DWedit and see exactly how everything is set.

Either that, or I secretly replaced the SW with Folgers Crystals... let's see if they notice!

Cheers,
David

03-03-07, 09:54 AM	#107
Bill Nichols Master of Defense Join Date: Mar 2000 Posts: 1,502 Downloads: 125 Uploads: 0	The 'click' cheat has never been a issue for me. I would hate to have this discussion hold-up LW's fine work. __________________ My Dangerous Waters website:

03-03-07, 10:39 AM	#109
Bellman Sea Lord Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 1,945 Downloads: 220 Uploads: 0	The good news for me is after testing SW v Ak I am content that the previous balance of sonar performances has been maintained in this mod. I agree ctc is only a potential MP problem - well policed in the Fleets. But also avoided, as can be seen from Fleet reports, as more and more players in sub v sub dives are selecting the same platforms - egs. 2 SW v 2 SW. So I do hope LW will press ahead in spite of these minor quibles. They are completely dwarfed by the extent of other accomplishments but I make no appology for addressing them at the 'eleventh hour' as we were asked to test and can only do so when RL permits. Edit: Fish I think you cite the extreme range as an example of difficulty, but I found intermediate range contacts quite easily with just progressive clicking at a couple of degree or so jumps. This is down to SAS not LW and I am at a loss to understand how it crept back in. Patch 1.04 Readme - '' Corrected an issue in which the Kilo was capable of creating Sonar contacts at excessively long ranges.'' So what happened ? __________________ Liberty, Equality, Fraternity Last edited by Bellman; 03-03-07 at 11:33 AM.

03-03-07, 03:33 PM	#112
SUBMAN1 Rear Admiral Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 11,866 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Did 3.08 ever make it out? Stll waiting with baited breath and can't seem to find it. Thought it was supposed to be out on Thurs or Fri?? -S __________________

03-04-07, 01:57 AM	#114
Bellman Sea Lord Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 1,945 Downloads: 220 Uploads: 0	Kilo SA NB ctc Bug Patch 1.04. SAS: Patch 1.04 Readme - '' Corrected an issue in which the Kilo was capable of creating Sonar contacts at excessively long ranges.'' Note the use of the word ''excessive'' - this bug/fault was not eliminated and is still present at 'acceptable' ranges up to 20 nm as tested today in a separate install of Stock 1.04. This would suggest that any SA sonar adjustments have intensified the fault within LwAmi. This means that contacts can be readily identified, if not marked, with increasing difficulty from 20 nm - 65+ nm. __________________ Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

03-04-07, 03:44 AM	#115
LuftWolf Ocean Warrior Join Date: May 2005 Location: Free New York Posts: 3,167 Downloads: 2 Uploads: 0	LWAMI 3.08 will be available either today (Sunday), Monday, or Tuesday. Sorry for the excessively large window of uncertainty... lots going on. Cheers, David __________________ LW

03-03-07, 09:38 AM	#106
Fish Eternal Patrol Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Netherlands Posts: 1,923 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Bellman, Tested with Kilo, well see for yourself. You have to place the cursor on the excact baring and click repeatedly to get a new contact at distance, so in a normal mission you do not find those faraway contacts I think. Not possible with the Seawolf. (used auto TMA).

03-03-07, 05:20 PM	#113
Dr.Sid The Old Man Join Date: May 2005 Location: Czech Republic Posts: 1,458 Downloads: 6 Uploads: 0	I guess, since it is not here, it is not out. But I'll be glad to be wrong

03-04-07, 06:16 AM	#116
Bellman Sea Lord Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 1,945 Downloads: 220 Uploads: 0	Great news David. I dont want to be a 'party-pooper' and its nothing that cant be tweaked but as requested, with time permitting, testing has continued. I must regretably withdraw my earlier remark - ''The good news for me is after testing SW v Ak I am content that the previous balance of sonar performances has been maintained in this mod.'' I am a SW diver (mainly) so have taken a closer look at the sonar changes. I was lead to believe that it was mainly the SA that had been 'adjusted. However I have found significant changes to the relative performances of the SW and Ak TAs in the mod. Under identical Test conditions and using separate installs of Stock 1.04 and LwAmi 3.072 I found the following maxima with TA NB marking(*): Stock SW - 47.9 nm. marked and 65.7 nm unmarked (*) with difficulty StocK AK 1 - 38.8 nm. marked LwAmi SW - 33.3 nm. marked. LwAmi AK 1 - 37 nm. marked. An equivalence of performance for the LwAmi SW and AK TA NBs swings the balance towards the AK. But I leave others to judge. __________________ Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

03-04-07, 06:27 AM	#117
LuftWolf Ocean Warrior Join Date: May 2005 Location: Free New York Posts: 3,167 Downloads: 2 Uploads: 0	A lot goes into those detections other than the sonar sensitivity, namely the platform noise levels and thrust sound vs. speed curves, which are very different in the modded and unmodded versions. The relative sonar strength between the TB-29 and the Pelamida have not been changed at all from stock DW, mainly because there is no gameplay reason to do so, nor any real world data suggesting this change be made. To be clear, the TB-29 is MUCH more sensitive (by a factor of 2/3) than the Pelamida. Taken as a balance, the SW has a massive advantage over the Akula in terms of detectibility in actual tactical situations, mostly because of the fact that it's maximum tactical speed is more than double that of the Akula, and it manages to be quieter at that speed than Akulas at their tactical speed. Cheers, David PS I assume your SSP is a convergence zone for these tests, in which case the ranges aren't really useful information, because you are getting them all on a bounce... all those contacts will eventually fade as they become closer (in theory) as those ranges HUGE. Conducting sim-level evaluations of sonar performance in a convergence zone SSP is basically a waste of time, unless you are testing convergence zone SSP's specifically for their impact on sonar performance. __________________ LW Last edited by LuftWolf; 03-04-07 at 06:39 AM.

03-04-07, 06:34 AM	#118
LuftWolf Ocean Warrior Join Date: May 2005 Location: Free New York Posts: 3,167 Downloads: 2 Uploads: 0	BTW, what is the point of bringing up stuff I changed years (!) ago? :hmm: You can PM me any questions you have, that might be a better way to go, since I'm not really clear what I'm supposed to read as a "problem", what is a question, and what is merely observation... and I'm sure I'm not the only one confused. Trust me, if I am aware of a problem, I'll be the first one to tell everyone about it. Cheers, David __________________ LW

03-04-07, 07:03 AM	#119
Bellman Sea Lord Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 1,945 Downloads: 220 Uploads: 0	No not a convergence zone - surface ducts may account for some maximums but not the general run. Anyways - ''for others to judge'' - I'm done as times run out. Good luck. __________________ Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

03-04-07, 07:18 AM	#120
LuftWolf Ocean Warrior Join Date: May 2005 Location: Free New York Posts: 3,167 Downloads: 2 Uploads: 0	Regardless, those numbers reported from your tests don't make sense. It's probably not worth saying that you can look into the database yourself with DWedit and see exactly how everything is set. Either that, or I secretly replaced the SW with Folgers Crystals... let's see if they notice! Cheers, David __________________ LW